2018 Year in Review: Public agencies prevailed in 65% of CEQA cases analyzed. By James L. Arnone, Marc T. Campopiano, Christopher W. Garrett, and Lucinda Starrett Over the course of 2018, Latham & Watkins lawyers reviewed all 57 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) cases, both published and unpublished, that came before California appellate courts. These … Continue Reading

Online alcohol sellers should ensure compliance with the new Prop 65 warning label requirements. By Michael G. Romey, Lucas I. Quass, and James A. Erselius On August 30, 2018, new regulations governing the implementation of California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop 65) went into effect. The new regulations apply to … Continue Reading

CEQA Case Report: Understanding the Judicial Landscape for Development[I] By Christopher W. Garrett, Daniel Brunton, James Erselius, and Derek Galey In a published decision issued June 12, 2018, County of Ventura v. City of Moorpark, Case No. B282466, the California Court of Appeal rejected part of the County of Ventura and the City of Fillmore’s … Continue Reading

California Natural Resources Agency adopts final amendments to CEQA Guidelines, providing additional clarifying revisions to GHG impacts, baseline, and deferral of mitigation amendments. By Marc Campopiano, Winston Stromberg, and Samantha Seikkula The California Office of Administrative Law recently approved a suite of amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, which are now in effect. Latham wrote about … Continue Reading

By Joshua T. Bledsoe and Kimberly D. Farbota On September 27, 2018, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed Resolution 18-34, extending the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Program to 2030 and making significant changes to the design and implementation of the Program. This blog outlines seven takeaways for market participants and stakeholders. 1. CARB … Continue Reading

By Christopher H. Norton, Lucas I. Quass, and Derek Galey CEQA Case Report: Understanding the Judicial Landscape for Development[I] In an unpublished opinion issued July 10, 2018, Sierra Club v. County of Kern, Case No. F071133, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded for the issuance of a new writ … Continue Reading

Companies may need to carefully consider practical business concerns to comply with the updated Prop 65 regulations, effective August 30. By Michael G. Romey, Lucas I. Quass, and James A. Erselius New regulations governing the implementation of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop 65) will go into effect on August … Continue Reading

CEQA Case Report: Understanding the Judicial Landscape for Development[I] By Winston P. Stromberg, Lucas Quass and Christopher Adam Martinez In an opinion published on August 9, 2018, Protect Niles v. City of Fremont, Case No. A151645, the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s issuance of a writ of … Continue Reading

Harvard professor Robert Stavins joins Latham partner Bob Wyman to review key climate change mitigation policies. California’s climate change mitigation program is widely viewed as one of the most comprehensive of its kind — encompassing a cap-and-trade component and a series of complementary measures with specific performance targets for important sectors such as motor vehicles, … Continue Reading

Upstream entities will need to shoulder more responsibility in the warning process after August 30th. By Michael G. Romey and Lucas I. Quass As discussed in Latham’s previous post, August 30, 2018 will mark a significant change in the enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition … Continue Reading

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California leadership increases the possibility of much-needed relief for California’s aging water-supply infrastructure. By Paul N. Singarella, Daniel P. Brunton, and Lucas I. Quass The California WaterFix is the most expensive, important, and controversial water infrastructure project in California, and perhaps the country, in decades. At a price tag of … Continue Reading

The purpose of this communication is to foster an open dialogue and not to establish firm policies or best practices. Needless to say, this is not a substitute for legal advice or reading the rules and regulations we have summarized. In any particular case, you should consult with lawyers at the firm with the most experience on the topic. Depending on your specific situation, answers other than those outlined in this blog may be appropriate. Your use of this blog site alone creates no attorney client relationship between you and Latham & Watkins LLP. Do not include confidential information in comments or other feedback or messages left on the Global Privacy & Security Compliance Law Blog Blog, as these are neither confidential nor secure methods of communicating with attorneys.

Portions of this blog may constitute attorney advertising. Any testimonial or endorsement on this profile does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation.

Latham & Watkins operates worldwide as a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (USA) with affiliated limited liability partnerships conducting the practice in France, Italy, Singapore, and the United Kingdom and as an affiliated partnership conducting the practices in Hong Kong and Japan. Latham & Watkins operates in South Korea as a Foreign Legal Consultant Office. Latham & Watkins works in cooperation with the Law Office of Salman M. Al-Sudairi in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.